With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause. In that conflict more than 630,000 soldiers were killed or wounded in four years of hellish war. To place this in perspective consider that the entire population of the United States at war's end was 35 million, putting war casualties at nearly two percent of the total populace. Equivalent rates of casualties today would result in five million dead or wounded, dwarfing our losses in World War II, or any other war.
Why did two percent of our population suffer death or maiming? Over the issue of state sovereignty and the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment (ratified in 1791). The text is simple enough: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But we also have the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which say, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
This week, marking 150 years from that momentous event at Fort Sumter, is an appropriate time to reflect again on what happened and why in this epic constitutional dispute.
That "terrible cause" of the South is usually thought of as the defense of slavery. This is what we are all taught in school; and the idea is strongly entrenched today. In the April 10, 2011, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. defined the Civil War as a conflict over property rights, the property being of course four million slaves living in the South at the time. He concludes that the "Civil War was about slavery, nothing more."
I disagree. Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.
Specifically, eleven southern states seceded from the Union in protest against federal legislation that limited the expansion of slavery claiming that such legislation violated the tenth amendment, which they argued trumped the Supremacy Clause. The war was indeed about protecting the institution of slavery, but only as a specific case of a state's right to declare a federal law null and void. Southern states sought to secede because they believed that the federal government had no authority to tell them how to run their affairs. The most obvious and precipitating example was the North's views on slavery. So yes, the South clearly fought to defend slavery as a means of protecting their sordid economic system and way of life, but they did so with slavery serving as the most glaring example of federal usurpation of state powers of self-determination. The war would be fought to prevent those states from seceding, not to destroy the institution of slavery. The war would be fought over different interpretations of our founding document.
The inherent tension between Article VI and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution has kept lawyers busy and wealthy from the day the words were penned, and the argument goes on today. But the South went a significant step further than arguing a case. In seceding from the Union those states declared the U.S. Constitution dead. The president of the United States, sworn to uphold the Constitution, had no choice but to take whatever measures were necessary to fulfill his commitment. Cleary if any state could withdraw from the Union whenever that state disagreed with others, the Union over which Lincoln presided would not last long. So war came.
But freedom for slaves did not. President Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation until January 1, 1863, more than one and a half years after the war started. His goal was initially to preserve the Union, and he only issued that proclamation when he felt doing so would promote that objective. One could argue that if the primary cause of the war was slavery then Lincoln's first act would have been to free them. Historians have written many volumes on Lincoln's timing and motivation, but one thing is clear: slavery was not his first priority.
To support the idea that the war was only about slavery, Mr. Pitts cites newspaper quotes from 1860 that note the grave threat to the economic value of slaves if the North prevailed politically; and Mr. Pitt provides quotes from a few articles of separation from states that specifically reference slavery as a cause for seceding. But that just proves what we already know: the South wanted to defend slavery and their cotton economy. We understandably focus on this specific while ignoring the broader issue in contest. But a subset of a set is not the set. An example of an issue is not the issue. Slavery was a specific issue of a perceived violation of a state's rights, over which the country went to war. Claiming the Civil War was about slavery alone is like saying that the recent revolution in Egypt was about unseating Mubarak and nothing else. That conclusion misses the more important point that the real issue was self-determination and the right to a representative government. Mubarak was not the issue, only a specific example of the larger problem of a non-representative government. Ousting Mubarak was a subset of a larger set.
Mercifully the war finally ended. On April 3, 1865, Richmond, Virginia, fell to Union soldiers as Confederate troops retreated to the West, exhausted, weak, and low on supplies. On April 5, Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant started an exchange of notes that would lead to Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9. But damn if the South does not hold on to the war as if they never actually lost, fighting incongruously for a hopeless cause of questionable value while simultaneously wrapping themselves in the American flag representing the Union they are so proud of leaving.
We endure today strange twists of history like Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell proclaiming April "Confederate History Month" without ever mentioning slavery. When questioned about this curious oversight, McDonnell lamely explained that "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia." Really? If slavery was not among the most "significant" issues for Virginia, exactly what other state right was more important? This is the downside of the argument I try to make here; it is open to abuse by this kind of intellectual trash. Sadly, McDonnell is the not the first governor of his state to explicitly omit slavery from lofty declarations. Former Republican Virginia Governor Republican George Allen also failed to recognize slavery when making a similar proclamation. Seems to be a disease of Republican governors, a historic irony given the role of the young Republican Party in the war.
Ah, yes, we also have the Confederate flag. What exactly about the war's history would lead one to fly a Confederate flag over a state capitol building, or paste one on a F150 bumper or wear one on a T-shirt? Does the flag indicate pride about the effort to protect slavery? Or attempting to secede from the Union? For starting a war in which two percent of the population died? For losing the war? These are odd banners to carry around for nearly 150 years. Perhaps the pride comes from the fact that the South stood up to a greater power, at least checking or slowing the pace of an expanding federalism. But even that does not pass the smell test; by starting but then losing the war the South created the exact opposite effect, solidifying federal power like never before.
Let's be clear that the South sought to destroy the United States, not only through war but just in the act of secession. Once the principle of seceding is established the glue holding the Union together would soon dissolve. Proof of that is in the fact that during the war the Confederacy began to dissolve through the secession of Southern states from the Confederacy! South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union, also threatened later to secede from the Confederacy, as did Georgia later in the war. The legitimacy of secession could lead to nothing but balkanization, a group of independent states much like we see in Europe. The United States of American could not exist.
The South started and lost a war that nearly destroyed the United States. The cause was unjust, the economic justification unseemly. The actions were treasonous. There is no part of the Confederate cause of which to be proud. There is no moral high ground here. Southerners who claim a deep national pride celebrate their ancestors' efforts to dissolve the very union of states whose flag they now so proudly fly. They honor a campaign to destroy our country through dissolution but claim the mantle of patriot. A southern loyalist cannot be a patriot; the two ideals are mutually incompatible. As I have said before, you cannot simultaneously love the United States and love the idea of seceding from the United States. To claim both is equivalent of declaring that you love all Mexican food but hate enchiladas. The claims are each exclusive of the other and therefore by definition both cannot be true.
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves. Neither cause should induce pride. As we celebrate this 150 year anniversary, the South should humbly honor the victory of the North and ask forgiveness for waging a bloody war against reason and decency.
Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist, former White House senior policy analyst and author of, Beyond Cosmic Dice: Moral Life in a Random World (Jacquie Jordan, Inc ). Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Facebook.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
You are almost correct when you stated......
"It doesn't really matter what the stated reasons are for the Civil War".
Your incorrect wording is that you call it a "Civil War; It was not. The States that left the founders confederacy did so as individual sovereigns, they then formed a Confederacy, league, alliance, union, stiled "The Confederate States of America". These sovereign States and their Confederacy were no longer part of the United States of America; therefore it was NOT a Civil War. It was sovereign independent States joined together in a Confederacy, which were then militarily invaded and occupied by the then, newly established NATIONAL empire that replaced the Founders original Confederacy.
You are correct..." It doesn't really matter what the stated reasons are"... Because the end result of the invasion and occupation of our Confederate States was the destruction of the Founders Confederacy stiled "The United States of America", and the establishment of a CORPORATELY CONTROLLED NATIONAL EMPIRE, hegemony, perpetual WAR , economic enslavement, loss of liberty, etc...... The only hope for a return to the founders system of government and the protection of Gods gift of LIBERTY, is through the restoration of the 1861 Confederacy complete with revisions to that constitution which will take us back to the Articles of CONFEDERATION, a truly confederate system of government where the States are sovereigns= truly States, instead of provinces of an empire.
Patrick Henry said it..."Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
Protecting Liberty is never over, 150 years or 10 thousand, makes no difference.
As for giving land back to the Native American, I am of Powhattan descent, I suppose I have that claim.
Now here we arrive at the truth; The invasion of the Sovereign States that left the empire did result in the destruction of the States that remained in the union, and did establish a National empire which holds not only an authority over the individual citizen and their Liberty but and indefinite supremacy over all persons, and thing. In facing the truth the only logical conclusion, is that the founders governmental system was destroyed and replaced with a tyranny under a corporate controlled empire. Continued on next post...............
You stated that the president had no choice, that he was sworn to uphold the constitution, " Cleary if any state could withdraw from the Union whenever that state disagreed with others, the Union over which Lincoln presided would not last long."
The problem with this statement is that, the constitution though National in the aspirations of the federalists,did not prohibit secession, this would have contradicted the our declaration of Independence. The union would have still existed, as just that, (A UNION). A union, is not by force, FORCE = TYRANNY. A State cannot exist without sovereignty. If a State is not sovereign, then it falls under the dominion of a Sovereign, thus ceasing to exist as a State, reducing its status to an administrative district of the dominant sovereign. What Lincoln did was to complete the National government that was intended with the Virginia Plan. The Confederates, called incorrectly Anti-Federalists, were Confederates, who wished to remain under the Articles of CONFEDERATION, a Confederate system of government. Patrick Henry stated that the union under the 1787 constitution would not last a hundred years. It lasted but 90 before the National government came into full existence. Save the union ? NO, Lincoln helped to destroy it, by destroying the last remains of the Founders Confederate system of government.
The Confederate government never surrendered, Lee surrendered the Northern arm of Virginia; No General has the authority to surrender a government, Continued on next post......
“A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever.” Jefferson Davis.
Absent a surrender of the government, or a peace treaty, the government still legally exists.
"Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990].
The Confederate States government, is still or Dejure government. It exists in a state of political exile. The National empire and its satellite provinces which occupy our confederate States, are defacto.
Those who have not accepted the distortion of truth that has been fed to them by the occupational defacto government, do not have loyalty to it, but are loyal to the founders Confederate System of government under the Articles of Confederation, and recognize the legal avenue left open to the Confederate States of 1861, in which we may utilize through the re-seating of that government, to restore the Founders Confederate system, in which the States do truly exist, because they are sovereigns, a union of States does exist because it is voluntary, And Gods gift of Liberty will be restored.
With your logic, shouldn't you give your land back to the Indians whose property was taken illegally by the "empire" you so loathe? What would make you the rightful owner when you own the land only as a conseequence of the illegal actions of an invading empire?
Mr. Schweitzer,
What has been placed over the majority of the people of both the Empire and our Confederate States by the Empire is the Machiavellian illusion....
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."
.... Niccola Machiavelli,.
War ? NO ! That is what your empire feeds on, perpetual WAR. What we aim to do is simply re-seat our dejure 1861 Confederate government, and use it as a legal remedy to restore the Founders original Confederacy under our 1781 Constitution in which the States still exist.
Some claim that the Confederacy wanted to destroy the United States. That is absurd, frankly. They wanted to be left alone., since the Union government was forcing the south as a whole to pay for 80% of the government and the internal improvements for the northern states, but only had 20% of the votes.
I will post a link that pretty much sums up the role Lincoln played as well as the steps taken in GREAT detail to start the War of Northern Aggression. I am sure that most readers on this site will have convulsions and their heads will spin before popping off straight away, BUT, these facts are all backed up by historical documents that most who believe the federal union's version and simply take it as gospel, don't ever bother to look for. Another thing, Who is it said for centuries has history been written by ??? The winner or the loser ??? Keep that in mind. We know from facts and historical documents that the news media was FORCED to tell the federal union's version.
http://www.iahushua.com/hist/lincoln.html
Your article presupposes that in slavery's absence, something else would've caused the Civil War. That assumption doesn't help us very much, because it ignores the central issues of slavery and race, and how those issues played a central economic role in building the US prior to 1861. Not to mention the major factor in creating a unifying effect for the nation in the connections between freedom and race, at least before the 1850s.
The other issue that's important here is that many of the themes of the Civil War remain unresolved. Southern Whites defending a flag and a "way of life" that depended on the subjugation of millions of people during slavery and after the Civil War -- you know, the Jim Crow era (1877-1970-ish). When folks defending the Stars and Bars use the term "way of life," they never describe it in any detail, as if we know what this means, as if we're only talking about barbeques and blue-grass bands. The day that Confederate apologists get real about slavery and segregation is the day that we can finally stop debating about the causes of the Civil War and the sanctity of the blood-stain Confederate flag.
If the war was only about slavery, Lincoln would have freed the slaves at the first volley at Ft. Sumter, or never agreed to compromise prior to the war to allow the South to keep slaves if they were not allowed in new states. In rejecting the historical fact the state sovereignty was the war's cause, we give the North too much credit for attacking slavery, which they were terribly slow to do. The focus on states' rights does nothing to absolve the South of their guilt but does indict the North. The Union was slow and reluctant to attack slavery. That slaves were freed only 1.5 years into the war is evidence enough that slavery was not the primary focus of the North early on.
Realistically I see little difference between someone flying either confederate flag and Native Americans holding a powwow...
Equally, I see this continual chastisement of those from southern states in the same light that I would see continual chastisement of Germans or Japanese or Italians for WWII -- as means to demonstrate power and control -- in other words... as the act of an abuser.
Thank you Dr. Schweitzer for a well-written, interesting and informative post.
I would however disagree with the author in his statements regarding the Confederate flag. I agree that one cannot love both the USA and love the CSA but I do not feel that this is what those who fly the flag (the battle flag anyway) are saying. When the battle flag is flown, I see it as a symbol of respect to Confederate veterans, not the government of those men. If the Confederate national flag was flown, I would see it as a hypocrisy but the flag I believe the author is referring to is the Southern Cross, not the Stars and Bars.
All in all, well written article.
Northern politicians had previously tried to limit the political representation of Southern states in the infamous three-fifths clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2). Putting aside the reprehensible language that reduces a person, for base political reasons, to something less than a person, the three-fifths clause was a compromise that was struck between Northern and Southern politicians over political representation, driven primarily by the fact that if representation was determined by a simple head count, some Southern states would be allotted much more representation as a result of their total population of free and enslaved residents – a representative system based on the total population of a state that only represented the concerns of the small white land-owning and slave-owning population. In this early example, as with the issues that led to the South’s secession, the North was protecting its political interests over any concerns for human rights.
So the South pushed the states’ rights side of the argument because they felt, with justification, that they were being politically marginalized, and the North pushed the Federal side of the argument because they wanted to maintain political and economic control. Though we often get caught up in the comforting idea that the North fought for moral reasons, it really isn’t the case. The institutions of slavery and the slave trade were absolutely reprehensible, no doubt, but we really can’t claim any moral high ground based on the actions and intentions of our Northern ancestors.
Thanks for your comments.
The Civil War was a war that needed to happen, both states rights and slavery were not issues that were going to be resolved without bloodshed. Oliver Wendell Holmes had respect for confederate soldiers he fought against, why shouldn't I?
Great article Dr. Schweitzer. I expect you’ll get some flack, though, for suggesting that the South should thank the North for winning the war; that’s a few steps farther than I would take it, but I understand the sentiment. The Civil War still provokes strong emotions among Americans.
It has long been accepted among mainstream historians that the South's secession was more an issue of asserting states' rights rather than the defense of slavery – though white Southern land owners defended the system of slavery, for sure. But an even more fundamental issue in the South’s secession was the struggle between the North and the South over economic control and political representation. We often get caught up in the revisionist idea that the Union fought the war because of a moral imperative to end slavery in the South, but Northern politicians and land owners, for the most part, had no problem with slavery – most of them were slave owners too. The more pressing issue for politicians in the North was the fact that the Southern plantation system was very economically successful, posing a risk that the economic and political priorities of the Southern states would come to dominate all of Federal politics.
And that crazy bullshit about the South at the end??? Dude...you are a freaking lunatic. Your brain is literally broken. Seriously, go to the hospital.
Although that may have been the consequence, if the War of Secession was not fought;
or if the Confederacy had won, that was not the intention of seceding.
The South was looking at Mexico as it's first territory for conquest, not at the North;
this was not a "civil war", to conquer and control the US.
Just because those states that had secession in their blood exercised their right; it doesn't necessarily follow that the northern states would follow a secession path.
But that wasn't my main point; my main point is even if that may have been the consequence, it was not the South's intention.
First, it was an impossible goal "to destroy the United States"; and second, it was not in the South's strategic interest, unlike the act of secession.
Please provide evidence that "...the South sought to destroy the United States, not only through war but just in the act of secession."